URSULA S. HERRERO, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM JAMES PEARCE, JR., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ursula Herrero appealed a paternity judgment that established William Pearce as the father of her daughter but denied her requests for pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed, holding that the prevailing plaintiff in a paternity action is entitled to attorney's fees under Florida statute and that pre-judgment interest is properly awarded once damages are liquidated by judgment.
A prevailing complainant in a paternity action is entitled to attorney's fees under section 742.031. Pre-judgment interest is recoverable on child support claims because once a judgment liquidates the specific monthly amounts due as of particular dates certain, the claim becomes susceptible to pre-judgment interest as a matter of mathematical computation.
[1] A prevailing plaintiff in a paternity action is entitled to attorney's fees under section 742.031, Florida Statutes (1987).
[2] Prejudgment interest is an element of pecuniary damages and is awarded to make the plaintiff whole from the date of loss.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The prevailing complainant in a paternity action is entitled to attorney's fees under section 742.031, Florida Statutes (1987).”
Establishes the statutory entitlement to attorney's fees for prevailing paternity plaintiffs, reversing the trial court's denial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHerrero initiated a paternity action against Pearce regarding their daughter. The trial court established Pearce as the father and awarded child suppo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pecuniary Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Herrero appeals an order establishing Pearce as the father of her daughter but denying her request for pre-judgment interest and attorney’s fees. Appellant contends that section 742.031, Florida Statutes (1987), mandates that a father must pay a prevailing plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and that, because her claim for back child support can be easily calculated, she is entitled to pre-judgment interest. We agree and reverse.
The prevailing complainant in a paternity action is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 742.031, Florida Statutes (1987). White v. Means, 280 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). We reverse and remand for appropriate findings to support an award of attorney’s fees to Herrero.
The trial court denied the request for pre-judgment interest because it considered the recovery unliquidated. Prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages. Mason v. Reiter, 564 So. 2d 142, 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Under the loss theory, the plaintiff is to be made whole from the date of the loss once a finder of fact has determined the amount of damages and the defendant’s liability therefor. Id. For the purpose of assessing prejudgment interest, a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date. Id. Once a verdict has liquidated the damages as of a date certain, computation of prejudgment interest is merely a mathematical computation. Id. at 146.
As in Mason, the final judgment in this case liquidated the child support payments due as of particular dates certain. These amounts were recognized by judgment and only a mathematical computation was left for the court to consider. Although no transcript was provided, it is undisputed on appeal that the court heard extensive argument which disclosed the specified amounts. Therefore, we remand the case for calculation and award of prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from each monthly date of loss when Pearce should have made each payment, see Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985); Zafrilla v. Volare Shoes Inc., 394 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN, WIGGINTON and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shep Harris, Jr. v. Zenoria T. McKINNEY, 20 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…“[t]he appellant correctly notes that the party entitled to an award of child support is also entitled to prejudgment interest computed from the dates the court determines the support payments to have been due.” Id. at 981 (citing Herrero v. Pearce, 571 So. 2d 96, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)). However, like the language in Penalver, this observation is not the holding of the case, but rather is dicta. In Herrero, the First District determined that retroactive child support is in the nature of liquidated damages…1 / 2
-
Phillips v. Parrish, 585 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…interest as of May 29, 1987, in the amount of $967.79. In Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court held that prejudgment interest is awardable in property damage cases. See also Herrero v. Pearce, 571 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages. Argonaut, supra. Once a verdict has liquidated the damage as of a certain date, the awarding of prejudgment interest is merely a mathematical calculation which…
-
Golden v. Lewis, 647 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ount of child support. The appellant correctly notes that the party entitled to an award of child support is also entitled to prejudgment interest computed from the dates the court determines the support payments to have been due. Herrero v. Pearce, 571 So. 2d 96, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). We otherwise affirm the determination of paternity. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. PATTERSON and QUINCE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Mason v. Reiter, 564 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- White v. Means, 280 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Marina Lastra Zafrilla v. Volare Shoes, Inc., 394 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)